"Existing"? What do you mean??

Received · Jan 11, 2017

quatona said:
So, here goes.
Allow me to contemplate on toddlers a bit more, and let´s see if you can agree with this, or at least understand what I mean, to begin with.

So we are assuming this "sense of existence". This wording makes me cringe, but then any other wording I try to catch it with makes me cringe, too. "The entirety of existence", "That Which Exists", "existence itself", all wrong. Actually, it seems to me to be this very case of "what we cannot speak about". Of course, you and I won´t let that stop us from trying to, anyway.

What we are talking about here, is not a sense of something. There is no referent. It´s just there. It´s immediate. We might try to say the sense and the referent are identical. Or IOW: no word or concept fits in between them without causing damage. In my understanding, the newborn needn´t even have opened her eyes or have had any sensual connection to the "external world". This "sense of existence" (for lack of a better term) isn´t a cognitive thing, it isn´t a concept, it isn´t contigent on anything that our concepts are contingent on. It doesn´t carry an " as oppposed to" with it, it has no implicit negation. It isn´t divisive in any way. The "sense of existence" doesn´t ask or alllow for a distinction. It is solely inclusive. It isn´t directed at anything. It doesn´t reference anything.
It´s unique in that there´s no sense comparable to it - because all other senses are senses of something.
Due to this uniqueness, I would like to give it a name that is exclusively reserved for it, let´s say "Shoo", in order to avoid and point out the usual confusion.

I think this is what Kant had in mind when he critiqued Anselm by saying that "existence is not a predicate." But I also think of Heidegger, who distinguished "beings" (plural) from "Being"; in both cases, though, I think this fits what you're saying, that being (or "shoo"

), isn't something, but the substance (for lack of a better word) of all somethings (if that's what you're basically saying). But even still, I think we can meaningfully say something like, "this has no existence". Which in turn makes me think of Aquinas' distinction of essence and existence: fictional characters can have an essence but not an existence. Thoughts?

Received · Jan 11, 2017

quatona said:
At this point, Received, let me share two things of which I am not even sure they are on topic - they do, however, relate to it since they talk about acquirition of language and concepts. I guess my mind connects them to our conversation for a reason...

1. Have you seen the movie "Room"? I think it´s an overall excellent movie, but here I just want to share one aspect. The first half of the movie we are in Room. It´s a small room with two persons in it: A woman who has been confined there for many years, and her 5year old son who has been born in there and never been outside. The mother, not seeing any chance that they would ever get out, raises her son in the conviction that Room is all there is. There is something beyond it (Room has Roofwindow, so Sky can be seen), but it isn´t real. The boy speaks like I just did: the sink isn´t "a sink", not even "the sink", it is "Sink". There are Table, Chair, Fridge... So he didn´t acquire those words as abstract concepts, as categories, but in the same way we first learn names: "This is Peter", not "a Peter",or "the Peter". Peter is introduced as unique. (Interestingly, we later get to know other Peters, but we don´t tend to think of "Peter" as a category.
(Well, of course at some point they can escape, and Mother has some explaining to do. The second half of the movie tells us how the boy deals with exploring the former 'metaphysical' world that has now become his new reality.)

I'd say that in these cases, even though the child only has one referent for each sign (e.g., "sink" rather than "the sink", which implies distinction), each of the names still contain abstractions given that they contain signifieds. In this case each of the singular items in the room are the original stamps of signifieds and referents that would be used to conceptualize (via signifieds) other objects. Say the chair is a red velvet chair. As the only object he creates a sign (signifier and signified) from this single chair, and this is stored in his memory as the sort of semi-Platonic form of what a chair is -- i.e., it becomes his signified.

quatona · Jan 11, 2017

Chesterton said:
Sleep is kind of a touchy subject for me.

So I better not bring up the question "Does sleep exist?".

Sorry to hear that, Chesterton!

Chesterton · Jan 12, 2017

quatona said:
So I better not bring up the question "Does sleep exist?".
Sorry to hear that, Chesterton!

Well I think sleep must exist or else we would all be walking around very sleepy due to a lack of sleep!

If you don't mind one more question, which is partially prompted by the music: if there is something like "universal consciousness", do you think it is moral or amoral? Does it care about anything, in terms of right and wrong? Could it be Beyond Good and Evil, to borrow a phrase?

durangodawood · Jan 12, 2017

Sleep doesnt exist.
It happens.

(not often enough tho).

Chesterton · Jan 12, 2017

durangodawood said:
Sleep doesnt exist.
It happens.

(not often enough tho).

Happens is the same as exists. Exists is the same as happens. Things are events, and events are things. It's called spacetime.

durangodawood · Jan 12, 2017

Chesterton said:
Happens is the same as exists. Exists is the same as happens. Things are events, and events are things. It's called spacetime.

Spacetime is oversold. Space and time have quite different characteristics.

For instance, on any spatial dimension I can move in either direction at will. Try that with time!

Chesterton · Jan 12, 2017

durangodawood said:
Spacetime is oversold. Space and time have quite different characteristics.

For instance, on any spatial dimension I can move in either direction at will. Try that with time!

We have tried it with time - the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment - the particles go back in time. In any event, you and a mountain and the universe are all events.

durangodawood · Jan 12, 2017

Chesterton said:
We have tried it with time - the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment - the particles go back in time. In any event, you and a mountain and the universe are all events.

So one tiny little near-nothing might have gone backwards. At our scale its different. And that makes time and space different in that regard at least.

quatona · Jan 12, 2017

Chesterton said:
Well I think sleep must exist or else we would all be walking around very sleepy due to a lack of sleep!

If you don't mind one more question, which is partially prompted by the music: if there is something like "universal consciousness", do you think it is moral or amoral?

Since It is all-inclusive (It contains everything), I find the idea that It might distinguish between good and bad, right and wrong patently absurd.

Does it care about anything, in terms of right and wrong?

It cannot care about anything - It can´t have Higher Purposes.

Could it be Beyond Good and Evil, to borrow a phrase?

It´s beyond all our concepts we produce within It.

Chesterton · Jan 12, 2017

quatona said:
It´s beyond all our concepts we produce within It.

Including yours?

quatona · Jan 12, 2017

Chesterton said:
Including yours?

Sure.

quatona · Jan 13, 2017

Received said:
I'd say that in these cases, even though the child only has one referent for each sign (e.g., "sink" rather than "the sink", which implies distinction), each of the names still contain abstractions given that they contain signifieds. In this case each of the singular items in the room are the original stamps of signifieds and referents that would be used to conceptualize (via signifieds) other objects. Say the chair is a red velvet chair. As the only object he creates a sign (signifier and signified) from this single chair, and this is stored in his memory as the sort of semi-Platonic form of what a chair is -- i.e., it becomes his signified.

I was more thinking of "sink" vs. " a sink" - the latter of which already implies that "sink" is a category.

quatona · Jan 13, 2017

Received said:
I think this is what Kant had in mind when he critiqued Anselm by saying that "existence is not a predicate." But I also think of Heidegger, who distinguished "beings" (plural) from "Being"; in both cases, though, I think this fits what you're saying, that being (or "shoo" ), isn't something, but the substance (for lack of a better word) of all somethings (if that's what you're basically saying).

Well, first you praise me for having unique perspectives, and next you tell me that my idea isn´t all that original?

Personally, I´d still prefer "Shoo" over "Being". To me, simply capitalizing "being" doesn´t account for the essential difference.
Or, IOW, "being" vs. "Being" tells me that the signified are almost identical - I have to look for the differences. Whereas, in my understanding, you´d have a hard time to find communalities.

But even still, I think we can meaningfully say something like, "this has no existence". Which in turn makes me think of Aquinas' distinction of essence and existence: fictional characters can have an essence but not an existence. Thoughts?

I do not necessarily disagree - but I just don´t know what he means by "essence". So...
Reminds me of how I start this thread, implying that as long as things/characters/... are efficacious I don´t care much if they "exist" or not, whatever that might mean.
I keep wondering why - when people derogatively talk about deities as "imaginary friends" - theists get all defensive, instead of saying "So? What´s wrong with using my creative powers to the best of my abilities? What´s wrong with having a friend who is incredibly efficacious - regardless whether he could be said to "not exist" by some very unprecisely defined standards of "existing"?

In fact, this is exactly what prompted this thread: I was thinking of the "Good God" that I was brought up with - the God that cares for everything, the God that means "You don´t have to worry about anything, you don´t have to fear anything".
Even though in my mid-teens I realized that I didn´t believe there was such a God out there, this God kept His efficacy on me. This efficacy has accompanied me through all my life. This is more than anything that we´d all agree "exists" has ever done for me.
Made me also wonder if it might make sense to say "I have faith in something I don´t believe exists".

Ah, and thanks for the Chesterton, Huxley and Nietzsche quotes. Great stuff!

Paul uk · Jan 13, 2017

Just spotted this quote on another thread in regard to the doctrine of the trinity as upheld by the early Church Fathers. Some lines cover this topic quite nicely.

"And first, they taught us with one consent that God made all things out of nothing; for nothing was coequal with God: but He being His own place, and wanting nothing, and existing before the ages, willed to make man by whom He might be known; for him, therefore, He prepared the world. For he that is created is also needy; but he that is uncreated stands in need of nothing. God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels, begat Him, emitting Him along with His own wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were created by Him, and by Him He made all things. He is called governing principle' (arche), because He rules, and is Lord of all things fashioned by Him. He, then, being Spirit of God, and governing principle, and wisdom, and power of the highest, came down upon the prophets, and through them spoke of the creation of the world and of all other things. For the prophets were not when the world came into existence, but the wisdom of God which was in Him, and His holy Word which was always present with Him. Wherefore He speaks thus by the prophet Solomon: When He prepared the heavens I was there, and when He appointed the foundations of the earth I was by Him as one brought up with Him.' And Moses, who lived many years before Solomon, or, rather, the Word of God by him as by an instrument, says, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.'" Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, II:10 (c. A.D. 181).

Received · Jan 13, 2017

quatona said:
I was more thinking of "sink" vs. " a sink" - the latter of which already implies that "sink" is a category.

Yeah, so with the child in the room, his first experiences of singular things (e.g., the only sink there) in the room create his category of sinks, hence big-S Sink, but his application of the sign to its referent -- the sink in the room -- makes it a little-s sink, even though there's only one sink in the room and one sink he's ever experienced.

Received · Jan 13, 2017

quatona said:
Well, first you praise me for having unique perspectives, and next you tell me that my idea isn´t all that original?
Personally, I´d still prefer "Shoo" over "Being". To me, simply capitalizing "being" doesn´t account for the essential difference.
Or, IOW, "being" vs. "Being" tells me that the signified are almost identical - I have to look for the differences. Whereas, in my understanding, you´d have a hard time to find communalities.

Well, Heidegger doesn't have a track record of being the easiest philosopher to read (I envy your knowledge of German for this reason), but so far as I can tell, Being stands for the fact that things are, whereas being stands for particular beings. This distinction is at least important in reference to another distinction, between the ontic and ontological modes of existence, the former where you take Being for granted and so don't contemplate this incredible question "why is there Being/beings rather than nothing?" which when seriously considered opens up a pretty amazing appreciation for reality (which I think Chesterton was getting at with young children, whose amazement at things we call "normal" is quickly lost through repetition and I'd argue the blinding power of language); the latter ontological mode refers to contemplating things in such a way.

I do not necessarily disagree - but I just don´t know what he means by "essence". So...
Reminds me of how I start this thread, implying that as long as things/characters/... are efficacious I don´t care much if they "exist" or not, whatever that might mean.
I keep wondering why - when people derogatively talk about deities as "imaginary friends" - theists get all defensive, instead of saying "So? What´s wrong with using my creative powers to the best of my abilities? What´s wrong with having a friend who is incredibly efficacious - regardless whether he could be said to "not exist" by some very unprecisely defined standards of "existing"?

In fact, this is exactly what prompted this thread: I was thinking of the "Good God" that I was brought up with - the God that cares for everything, the God that means "You don´t have to worry about anything, you don´t have to fear anything".
Even though in my mid-teens I realized that I didn´t believe there was such a God out there, this God kept His efficacy on me. This efficacy has accompanied me through all my life. This is more than anything that we´d all agree "exists" has ever done for me.
Made me also wonder if it might make sense to say "I have faith in something I don´t believe exists".

Ah, and thanks for the Chesterton, Huxley and Nietzsche quotes. Great stuff!

This is definitely your pragmatist streak, and I have a big one as well, including when it comes to God: sure, I have faith that God exists, can pin down pretty reasonably some at least skeletal metaphysical requirements for him, but I'm not too worried if he doesn't exist because I (and maybe this doesn't apply to everyone, certainly not for people with less healthy God-concepts than mine, and I'm totally gracious for being able to wade through lots of theological and philosophical literature to come to these concepts) find I'm a lot happier believing he exists than if I didn't believe he did.

But I think people automatically find it impossible to believe stuff they think isn't true, or even might not be true (so caught up in false certainty as they are).

GrowingSmaller · Jan 14, 2017

To exist "is"..... there's the problem. Circularity.

quatona · Jan 14, 2017

Received said:
Yeah, so with the child in the room, his first experiences of singular things (e.g., the only sink there) in the room create his category of sinks, hence big-S Sink, but his application of the sign to its referent -- the sink in the room -- makes it a little-s sink, even though there's only one sink in the room and one sink he's ever experienced.

This doesn´t make much sense to me, even though I agree with the description of the process.
He doesn´t "create a category" until it becomes a category. A one on one signifier isn´t a category, yet.
But maybe this difference isn´t important for the point you want to make?
To me it seems important: Creating a category is a totally different level of abstraction than creating a single separate object and/or giving it a name.
Giving it an individual name doesn´t imply creating a category.

the iconoclast · Oct 12, 2018

quatona said:
God" isn´t sufficiently well defined to make the question

Hey hey quatona

How would we sufficiently define God to appease your criteria?

Cheers

"Existing"? What do you mean??

True love waits in haunted attics

True love waits in haunted attics

"God"? What do you mean??

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding

Dis Member

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding

Dis Member

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding

Dis Member

"God"? What do you mean??

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding

"God"? What do you mean??

"God"? What do you mean??

"God"? What do you mean??

Active Member

True love waits in haunted attics

True love waits in haunted attics

Muslm Humanist

"God"? What do you mean??

Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it

Similar threads